They’ll grind out public health statistics that become more and more dire every month, tax excess sugar, and issue health warnings until the cows com home. But the Western World’s politicians still won’t ban UPFs. In the UK, at least, the people say – “It’s time!”
A recent survey of UK shoppers clearly shows that the average person there is getting the message about UPFs. Almost 4 in ten Brits (39 percent) told researchers UPFs should be banned. No more pussy-footing around…
Tip of the iceberg
That was just the tip of the bad news iceberg on UPFs. The Mortar Research survey, commissioned by UK cookware retailer Lakeland, also revealed the following shocking stats:
- 59 percent of adults believe UPFs are ‘impossible to avoid’ when shopping on a budget
- 66 percent are worried about their effects on public health
- 68 percent believe the Government should do more to protect people from them.
Retailers and the food processing industry didn’t get off scot-free:
- 76 percent also think supermarkets should take more responsibility for the UPFs they sell
- 77 percent want clear warning labels on food containing ultra-processed ingredients
And…
- 74 percent say children should be taught at school about the dangers of UPFs and the importance of home cooking.
Escalating danger
This, while other recent science and news reports show the public health danger from UPFs is escal-ating at an alarming rate:
- The new 2026 US Dietary Guidelines for Americans favour the current formulations of UPFs
- The new US ‘War’ on Skimmed and 2% Milk supports childhood obesity
- more than 75 percent of the food products on Western World supermarket shelves are processed or ultraprocessed
- Two thirds of all Americans are now considered either overweight or obese, with that figure pro-jected to reach 3/4 by 2030.
- World obesity rates continue to rise, and
- Along with those rates, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, autoimmune disorders, a host of other metabolism conditions and even some cancers are on the rise.
Why don’t governments act?
The people we elect to government are supposed to be aware of and act in our best interests. On some issues, they do. But on any issue that involves big business, they demur. The pattern of govern-ment response to date, on food-related health issues, has been two pronged.
No one would argue that the government should order investigations and recalls on contaminated or mislabelled food. Or regulate the way our food is raised, slapping firm controls on pesticide and live-stock drug use. Even mandating that chickens be freed from restrictive cages. Farmers don’t like those regulations, but they grudgingly abide by them. Otherwise, they would be out of business. On the other hand, most Western countries give farmers subsidies to offset any rising costs.
But when it comes to mega industries, such as the food processors, governments even at the highest levels are reticent to apply strong regulations or otherwise mandate bans that are clearly in the pub-lic interest. Sure, they make a big deal out of banning certain food dyes and preservatives. But that doesn’t inconvenience the processed food empire. So, ‘no problem’.
Let nature take her course?
But what happens when a huge conglomerate like PepsiCo runs up against declining profits – even with no new government restrictions on what they put into their product and how they make them?
We looked at that situation late last year, when, for the first time, PepsiCo – which also owns big brands such as Lay’s and 59 other snack names – admitted it’s feeling a pinch. Its answer to the threat? Reformulate, getting rid of at least some of the worst additive offenders. Make a big noise about making their products healthier. Buy ‘truly heathy’ snacks companies.
The feds are afraid their big-business contributors will back somebody else in the next election if they meddle too much with the regulatory status quo. But they’re also afraid masses of UPF lovers will rally to another candidate to show their displeasure with processed food restrictions.
My take
One bright light in the war on UPFs: the City of San Francisco has announced it is suing the major UPF manufacturers for selling products dangerous to the public. The City Fathers and Mothers of San Francisco clearly aren’t worried that they’ll lose any votes or campaign donations by attacking UPFs.
My questions to you:
Do you agree with the 39 percent of Brits who want UPFs banned?
Do you agree that UPFs are ‘impossible to avoid’ when shopping on a budget?
Do you agree with the 66 percent who are worried about their effects on public health?
Do you agree with the 68 percent who believe the Government should do more to protect people from UPFs?
Muse on that…
~ Maggie J.